Scoring:
Not significant;
Low Significance;
Moderate Significance;
Medium-high Significance;
High Significance;
Exceptional Significance
Evidence A: Bosques amazónicos de reservas comunales en la AmazonÃa, la cual es de suma importancia global para la biodiversidad y el mantenimiento de la riqueza cultural.
Evidence B:The focus region is located in the Southern Tropical Andes. It is a hotspot for biodiversity in an intact forest area.
Scoring:
>50 t/ha - Low;
50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;
>100 t/ha - High
Evidence A: Las principales reservas que presentan están en zonas para la mitigación al CC en la AmazónÃa.
Evidence B:According to the map, all locations are in high carbon areas.
Scoring:
IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;
Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;
Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;
Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems
Evidence A: Las reservas en mención tienen la figura de administración para la cogestión entre el estado peruano y las reservas comunales. Se otorgan derechos de uso pero es un ejercicio de co-administración. La implementación tiene limitantes de capacidades y financiamiento.
Evidence B:The project is presented by the network of communal reserves. Communal reserves are managed with SERNANP (Peruvian protected area agency).
Scoring:
No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;
Significance of site(s) vaguely described;
Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained
Evidence A: Se explica la importancia de estos espacios pero es demasiado amplia y en cierto punto general.
Evidence B:There is a diversity of indigenous peoples included in this project. Their cultural particularities are described partially but well enough to understand their significance.
Scoring:
No evident threats;
Low threats;
Moderate threats;
Medium-high threats;
High threats;
Requires urgent action
Evidence A: Esta zona tiene altas amenazas y son expresadas en la propuesta: deforestacion, cambio climatico, cambio de uso de suelo, minerÃa, extracción ilegal de recursos, cultivos ilicitos, carreteras. Estas zonas tiene diversas y crecientes presiones.
Evidence B:Indigenous groups have the responsibility to manage communal reserves but lack the capacity and the resources to face the threats. Yes, they are vulnerable.
Scoring:
Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);
Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;
Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);
Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance
Evidence A: La propuesta aporta a fortalecer la figura de coadministración entre as reservas comunales y sus paisajes asociados con el estado. Es una acción innovadora y con mucho potencial. Sin embargo, la propeusta menciona qu ehay limitaciones en cuanto a capacidades y para lograr el financimiento para su sosteniblidad.
Evidence B:There are laws and regulations that are not enforced.
Scoring:
National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation
Evidence A: Evidentemente a nivel legal y en particular porque el estado es firmante de los contratos de administración comunales.
Evidence B:Communal reserves are regulated and promoted by the government.
Scoring:
No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;
Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;
Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;
Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years
Evidence A: Se mencionan varios tanto de la institución ANECAP como la asociada DRIS.
Evidence B:The Communal Reserve Amarakaeri is a success story that could be scaled up despite the big challenges they face in their buffer areas (gold mining).
Scoring:
Few to no complementary projects/investment;
Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;
Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial
Evidence A: Se vinculan varias iniciativas qu ese implementan tanto por la institución proponente asà como los otros ejecutores de contratos de administración en las reservas comunales
Evidence B:There are a few government initiatives that may be aligned with this project.
Scoring:
Weakly aligned;
Partially aligned;
Well aligned;
Exceptionally well aligned
Evidence A: En su conjunto está alineada la propuesta para fortalecer-aportar a los prinicpios de ICI.
Evidence B:The focus on communal reserves can yield important results.
Scoring:
The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;
Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;
Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;
The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline
Evidence A: Existen resultados y actividades bien definidas pero son extensas. Esta propuesta necesita contar con un marco lógico o una planeación que aterrice sus intereses en los resultados. Los conceptos son adecuados y tienen enfoque necesita clarificar el alcance de la propuesta. Me parece irreal si se cree que en 4 años se va a lograr todo lo planteado en las 3 RC.
Evidence B:There are some aspects that require clarification such as the manner in which ‘vigilance’ will be deployed without putting indigenous peoples in harm’s way.
Scoring:
Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;
Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;
Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;
The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context
Evidence A: Este es el problema de la propuesta: es extensa y sobre dimensionada… puede caer en generalidades. Es necesaria enfocarla, pero tiene los argumentos de abordar los principales amenazas que se de identifican. NecesitarÃa acotarse para mejorar.
Evidence B:Objectives and activities are clear but need to be more realistic.
Scoring:
Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;
Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment
Evidence A: Le he dado esta asignación proque no es que no están alineados con la inversión, pero si se acota mejor o se clarifica el alcance se podrÃa por supuesto lograr varias de los resultados con el presupuesto.
Evidence B:It is achievable if well managed.
Scoring:
None;
Small;
Moderate;
Significant
Evidence A: Existen varias incitivas a las que se pueden articular en términos de cofinanciamiento.
Evidence B:The proponent lists several potential sources of funding such as the Programa de Bosques and the Green Climate Fund.
Scoring:
Not provided;
Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);
Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);
High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);
Very high above 1,000,000 Ha
Evidence A: Calificación de acuerdo a las cifras que presentan.
Evidence B:Yes. The Communal Reserve co-management approach may be powerful to achieve conservation.
Scoring:
No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;
Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;
Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;
Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals
Evidence A: Se los propone. Son generales, podrÃan identificarse mejor.
Evidence B:There is acceptable alignment.
Scoring:
Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;
This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;
This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;
This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance
Evidence A: Existen varios elemenos de la propuesta que pueden ser potencialmente realizables y que darÃan sostén a acciones y finaciamiento futuro.
Evidence B:The proponent aims to achieve financial sustainability, this should be better spelled out.
Scoring:
Contributions not provided;
The project is weakly related to either national priorities;
The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;
The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities
Evidence A: Se explica en la propuesta y en general lo considero apropiada la vinculación con los establecido en las prioridades nacionales. Hay que tomar en cuenta que es central lo de potenciar las formas de coadministración para mejor las alianzas pero además avanzar en los derechos de los pueblos indÃgenas.
Evidence B:Yes, there are acceptable statements about the contributions.
Scoring:
Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;
Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;
Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');
Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming
Evidence A: En el acápite de gender mainstreaming está explÃcito el tema y se desarrollan algunas propuestas adecuadas. Sin embargo, en el diseño de la propuesta (resultados y actividades) no se menciona el tema ni como se va a abordar. Esto conlleva un riesgo importante al no haber sido incorporado técnicamente. Se sugiere revisar el contenido del proyecto e integrar las acciones que proponen (y que son adecuadas) en los resultados para poder monitorear y generar cambios durante la implementación del proyecto.
Evidence B:This element should be presented in more convincing detail.
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Low demonstrated potential;
Moderate demonstrated potential;
Medium-high demonstrated potential;
High demonstrated potential;
Exceptional demonstrated potential
Evidence A: El potencial tiene que ver con avanzar en mejorar las formas de implementación de la cogestión y avanzar en los derechos de los pueblos indÃgenas. No hay actividades innovadoras.
Evidence B:This project targets a few communal reserves. If successful, the lessons may be applied in other reserves.
Scoring:
IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;
Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;
IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);
Fully IPLC composed and led approach
Evidence A: Es la ANECAP la principal instancia con sus filiales y en consorcio con DRIS.
Evidence B:The cover page states that ANECAP is the proponent but the contact person is someone from an NGO (DRIS-Peru). Need to clarify the role of the NGO.
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;
Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;
Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work
Evidence A: Hay un liderazgo de ANECAP. Este es una organización indigena a nivel nacional que aglutina a los ejecutores de contrato. Es una instancia con liderazgo sobre este tipo de contratos con el estado.
Evidence B:ANECAP has demonstrated leadership on the ground.
Scoring:
No partners defined;
No IPLC partners identified;
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);
Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;
Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks
Evidence A: Idem texto anterior.
Evidence B:The proponent has strong ties with grassroots indigenous organizations.
Scoring:
No skills demonstrated;
The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;
There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;
The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;
They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;
The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.
Evidence A: La capacidad de alcanzar los resultados está sujeta a una revisión de la propuesta. Los resultado son muy amplios y ello muestra una debilidad para establecer el alcance real de la implementación del proyecto. Creo que puede mejorarse.
Evidence B:The proponent states that they and the NGO DRIS have experience with GEF.
Scoring:
Very limited (no criteria met);
Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);
Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);
Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance
Evidence A: Se presentan varias cifras sobre la ANECAP y sobre DRIS pero el rango máximo anual que mencionan es de USD 250.,000. Los valores de los proyectos son confusos.
Evidence B:This element needs to be explored further.
Scoring:
Answered no;
Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;
Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent
Evidence A: Se informa de la experiencia de implementacion de proyectos GEF pero la justificación le falta sustento.
Evidence B:NA